A randomized, controlled clinical evaluation of two resin cement systems in the adhesion of CAD/CAM-fabricated resin nanoceramic restorations: 18-month preliminary results.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the performance of two different adhesive resin cement systems in the cementation of inlay/onlay restorations produced from resin nanoceramic blocks using the CAD/CAM system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 70 inlay/onlay restorations made from Cerasmart (GC, Tokyo, Japan) resin nanoceramic blocks using CEREC Omnicam (Sirona Dental, Bensheim, Germany) were placed in 53 patients. The restorations were cemented with RelyX U200 Automix (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) self-adhesive resin cement (RXU) after selective enamel etching or with G-CEM LinkForce (GC, Tokyo, Japan) adhesive resin cement (GCL) in combination with a universal adhesive (G-Premio Bond) in selective etch mode. At baseline and after 6, 12, and 18 months, restorations were examined by two calibrated clinicians according to modified USPHS criteria. The data were analyzed using Chi-square (χ2 ) test and Friedman test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: After 18 months, two teeth at RXU group were endodontically treated due to hypersensitivities. At GCL group, three restorations were lost due to debondings (2) and ceramic fracture (1). The survival rates of RXU (94.3%) and GCL group (91.4%) exhibited no statistically significant difference (p = 0.661). No significant differences were detected for surface texture, secondary caries, anatomic form, color match, marginal discoloration, marginal integrity, interproximal contacts, and patient satisfaction (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The two resin cement systems showed acceptable clinical performance for the cementation of resin nanoceramic CEREC Omnicam inlay/onlay restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Resin nanoceramic restorations fabricated using CEREC Omnicam and cemented with either a self-adhesive or a universal adhesive/resin cement system demonstrated clinically acceptable results for posterior teeth in a single visit.

A clinical evaluation of resin nanoceramic CEREC Omnicam restorations associated with several factors.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing resin nanoceramic posterior restorations fabricated by CEREC Omnicam system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven Lava Ultimate posterior restorations were placed in 44 patients by one operator. Restorations were cemented using a resin cement system (Duo-Link). The clinical performance of the restorations was evaluated with USPHS guidelines in a mean time of 45-month. Data were statistically analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) tests (SPSS 22.0, α = 0.05). RESULTS: Thirty-eight restorations in 26 patients were evaluated at recall examinations by two evaluators other than the clinician who had placed the restorations who were blinded to groups. The survival rates of Lava Ultimate were 86.8%. A total of 5 (13.2%) failures were found. After a mean time of 45-month survival rate of vital and non-vital teeth were 90 and 83.3% respectively. The failures were not significantly influenced by gender, tooth arch, restoration size, the treated region and vitality. CONCLUSION: Chair-side posterior resin nanoceramic restorations were clinically successful restorations with a survival rate of 86.8% after a mean time of 45-month. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Chair-side CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic restorations can be a successful choice for vital and non-vital teeth with acceptable survival rates.

Twenty-four-month clinical performance of different universal adhesives in etch-and-rinse, selective etching and self-etch application modes in NCCL - a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, controlled, prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the performances of two different universal adhesives and one etch-rinse adhesive for restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients with at least seven NCCLs were enrolled. Lesions were divided into seven groups according to adhesive systems and application modes: GSE: GLUMA Universal-self-etch, GSL: GLUMA Universal-selective etching, GER: GLUMA Universal-etch-and-rinse, ASE: All-Bond Universal-self-etch, ASL: All-Bond Universal-selective etching, AER: All-Bond Universal-etch-and-rinse, SBE (Control): Single Bond2-etch-and-rinse. A total of 155 NCCLs were restored with a nano hybrid composite (Tetric N-Ceram). Restorations were scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, recurrent caries and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after one week, 6, 12 and 24 months. Statistical evaluations were performed using Chi-square tests (p=0.05). RESULTS: The recall rate was 81.9% after the 24-month follow-up. The cumulative retention rates for self-etch groups (GSE: 72.2%, ASE:75%) were significantly lower than other experimental groups (GSL: 93.7%, GER: 100%, ASL: 94.1%, AER: 100%, SBE: 100%) at the 24-month follow-up (p<0.05). Regarding marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration, GSE and ASE groups demonstrated more bravo scores after 6 and 12-month observations but differences were not significant (p>0.05). Only one restoration from ASL group demonstrated post-operative sensitivity at 6 and 12-month observations. No secondary caries was observed on the restorations at any recall. At the end of 24-month observations, no significant differences were detected among groups regarding any of the criteria assessed, except retention. CONCLUSION: GLUMA Universal and All-Bond Universal showed better results in etch-and-rinse and selective etching mode compared to the self-etch mode regarding retention. Etch-and-rinse and selective etching application modes of the current universal adhesives tended to provide better clinical outcomes considering the criteria evaluated at the end of 24-month evaluation.

Twenty-four-month clinical performance of different universal adhesives in etch-and-rinse, selective etching and self-etch application modes in NCCL - a randomized controlled clinical trial

Abstract Objective The aim of this randomized, controlled, prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the performances of two different universal adhesives and one etch-rinse adhesive for restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Material and Methods Twenty patients with at least seven NCCLs were enrolled. Lesions were divided into seven groups according to adhesive systems and application modes: GSE: GLUMA Universal-self-etch, GSL: GLUMA Universal-selective etching, GER: GLUMA Universal-etch-and-rinse, ASE: All-Bond Universal-self-etch, ASL: All-Bond Universal-selective etching, AER: All-Bond Universal-etch-and-rinse, SBE (Control): Single Bond2-etch-and-rinse. A total of 155 NCCLs were restored with a nano hybrid composite (Tetric N-Ceram). Restorations were scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, recurrent caries and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after one week, 6, 12 and 24 months. Statistical evaluations were performed using Chi-square tests (p=0.05). Results The recall rate was 81.9% after the 24-month follow-up. The cumulative retention rates for self-etch groups (GSE: 72.2%, ASE:75%) were significantly lower than other experimental groups (GSL: 93.7%, GER: 100%, ASL: 94.1%, AER: 100%, SBE: 100%) at the 24-month follow-up (p<0.05). Regarding marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration, GSE and ASE groups demonstrated more bravo scores after 6 and 12-month observations but differences were not significant (p>0.05). Only one restoration from ASL group demonstrated post-operative sensitivity at 6 and 12-month observations. No secondary caries was observed on the restorations at any recall. At the end of 24-month observations, no significant differences were detected among groups regarding any of the criteria assessed, except retention. Conclusion GLUMA Universal and All-Bond Universal showed better results in etch-and-rinse and selective etching mode compared to the self-etch mode regarding retention. Etch-and-rinse and selective etching application modes of the current universal adhesives tended to provide better clinical outcomes considering the criteria evaluated at the end of 24-month evaluation.